Title
Nullada vs. Civil Registrar of Manila
Case
G.R. No. 224548
Decision Date
Jan 23, 2019
Filipina seeks recognition of foreign divorce in Manila; Supreme Court rules Article 26 allows remarriage, remands for proof of Japanese law.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 224548)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Antecedents
    • Marlyn Monton Nullada (Filipino) and Akira Ito (Japanese) married on July 29, 1997 in Katsushika-Ku, Tokyo; their marriage was evidenced by a Report of Marriage issued by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo and registered with the Manila Local Civil Registry and the National Statistics Office.
    • The union produced one child, Shin Ito; the spouses’ relationship deteriorated, and by 2009 they secured a divorce decree in Japan.
  • Foreign Divorce Documentation
    • A Divorce Certificate (Cert. No. IB12-08573-12) was issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines on February 6, 2013, certifying the divorce of Marlyn and Akira on November 16, 2009.
    • An Acceptance Certificate issued by the Head of Katsushika-Ku, Japan (with English translation) confirmed both spouses’ consent.
  • Proceedings Before the RTC
    • In 2014, Marlyn filed a petition under Rule 108, in relation to Article 26 of the Family Code, to recognize the Japanese divorce, cancel her marriage entry in Manila, and declare her capacity to remarry.
    • The RTC of Manila (Branch 43) issued an order of hearing, required publication of summons, and served copies on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the City Prosecutor of Manila; the OSG deputized the City Prosecutor.
  • Trial and RTC Decision
    • Marlyn testified and identified exhibits: Report of Marriage (Exh. H), authentication thereof (H-1), Divorce Certificate (J), its authentication (J-1), Acceptance Certificate (L), excerpts of the Japanese Civil Code (M), and her Judicial Affidavit (N, N-1). The Local Civil Registrar’s officer authenticated registry entries. Akira did not answer; the Republic presented no evidence.
    • On January 21, 2016, the RTC denied the petition, citing the policy of non-recognition of divorce under Article 17 of the New Civil Code and ruling that Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not apply when the Filipino spouse actively participated in obtaining the divorce. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 26, 2016.

Issues:

  • Whether Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies only when the alien spouse secures a foreign divorce, and not when the divorce is mutually agreed upon or initiated by the Filipino spouse.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.